Showing posts with label PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME. Show all posts
Saturday, March 21, 2015
ANATOMY OF A CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME: THE KATHI SORRENTINO STORY, PART VI!
At the end of the hearing on May 23, 2014, Judge Corinne Klatt stated "I will find that joint legal custody between the two parties no longer works. Case law establishes that it only works if the parties are united in -- purpose. Clearly, that is not the case. Given the testimony of the parties, the evidence that's been presented today, I will issue -- I will make a finding that sole legal custody of the minor child, Storm, will rest with the plaintiff [father]. Physical residence of the child will change within the next 60 days."
OK, well, you see this is my problem--we are talking about a change in a final judgment dated November 29, 2007. Where is the case law which allows for such a dramatic change in custody based upon a failure in "united purpose" which existed prior to and subsequent to dissolution? What does the law state about a change in custody on that basis?
According to Crowley v. Crowley, 46 Conn. App. 87, 92, 699 A.2d 1029 (1997) and Spencer v. Spencer, 71 Conn. App. 575, 481, 802 A.2d 215 (2002) when presented
with a motion for modification of custody, a court must first determine as a finding of fact whether there has been a substantial change in the circumstances of one or both of the parties since the date of the judgment.
As anyone with a familiarity with the Sorrentino case would know Kathi and Sam Sorrentino weren't "united in purpose" before their divorce, particularly since Sam had perpetrated domestic violence against Kathi, and they were not "united in purpose" afterwards" since Mr. Sorrentino continued to legally stalk Kathi Sorrentino through the court system subsequent to dissolution as I have documented. Further, Judge Klatt's decision was in violation of the law in regard to the modification of a final judgment because it did not make a finding of fact that there had been any change in circumstances since judgment which would justify such a modification.
On the contrary, what Judge Corinne Klatt observed was that there was an ongoing continuation of circumstances that had always existed prior to dissolution and which continued subsequent to dissolution which is not sufficient to change a final judgment. As a judge, you can't just say, these two don't get along right now so I'm changing custody; otherwise, the Family Court system would be flooded with post-judgment cases.
Let's hear how Crowley v. Crowley defined this need to establish a change in circumstances before altering a final judgment. The case states, "Second, if
the court finds a substantial change in circumstances, it may
properly consider the motion [for modification of final judgment] and, on the basis of the § 46b-
82 criteria, make an order for modification . . . The court
has the authority to issue a modification only if it conforms
the order to the distinct and definite changes in the
circumstances of the parties.”
Again, I am looking, but I don't see any determination of a change of circumstances in Judge Klatt's order which could then be used to focus the Order of May 23, 2014 on that change of circumstances. In other words, this is an order for a change in custody which has been issued in complete disregard for and independent of the law.
But far be it from me to require a Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut to have some knowledge of and obey the law when issuing custody orders that will have a profound impact on the best interests of a child.
For those who may not have been following my narrative of this case, let me review the factors that fell into place after the March 28, 2014 hearing such that on May 23, 2014 there was an order for a change in custody. What occurred was that on March 28, 2014 Judge Corinne Klatt determined that Ms. Kathi Sorrentino had committed Parental Alienation. The Court ordered Ms. Kathi Sorrentino to address her alienation issues by taking specific steps which included obtaining therapy for herself and also for Storm to address this alienation.
May 23, 2014 was supposed to be a follow up hearing to determine whether Kathi had obeyed the order and to see how everything was going as a consequence. The decision to switch custody, though not cited in the final order as it properly should have been, was based on the grounds that Ms. Sorrentino's condition of PAS had not improved and that Storm continued to show symptoms of PAS as well and was, according to the GAL, getting worse. Again, this would not be in accordance with the law which requires a change of circumstances. If PAS exists in this case now, it most certainly existed prior to dissolution and would not represent a change.
Be that as it may, this is the point I would make. How can any reasonable individual believe that clients in therapy can achieve dramatic changes in mental status within such a limited period of time, i.e. sixty days? I mean, this is not like getting a tooth pulled, I think we would all agree. Plus, Storm had a long time history of anxiety which it is only logical became worse when he was required to go for overnights with his father which he had always disliked. This is where people like me start talking custody switching schemes!
Further, how can anyone believe in the possibility for any kind of significant improvement when the mental health illness we are talking about is not covered by insurance because it is a quack diagnosis that no legitimate insurance company or mental health professional would recognize so Ms. Sorrentino was unable to find a competent counselor who could treat her?
This was not hidden during the testimony in this case on May 23, 2015. As Dr. Eric Frazer himself stated, "First, there's very few qualified people who have the expertise on parental alienation that are capable of offering it within the geographical area" Oh, so what is Kathi Sorrentino supposed to do, grow wings and fly to a place that has them? Dr. Fraser continues, "Secondly, of the people that are qualified to provide that service none of them are on the insurance panels because it's -- it's, as pointed out, it's not considered a clinical disorder that's billable under health insurance."
Let me just interpret what Dr. Eric Frazer just said in real terms that we can all understand. Bottom line is Dr. Frazer is acknowledging that PAS is quack science. As Ms. Sorrentino stated, "My insurance does not cover parental alienation therapy because according to the American Psychiatric Association it is not a mental illness." And as she further confirmed in her testimony before the Court, at Yale Primary Care which she contacted for treatment the nurse stated, "they cannot code it because it's not a DSM-5 behavioral issue. It's not a recognized mental illness--so they can't diagnose it."
Let me just interpret what Dr. Eric Frazer just said in real terms that we can all understand. Bottom line is Dr. Frazer is acknowledging that PAS is quack science. As Ms. Sorrentino stated, "My insurance does not cover parental alienation therapy because according to the American Psychiatric Association it is not a mental illness." And as she further confirmed in her testimony before the Court, at Yale Primary Care which she contacted for treatment the nurse stated, "they cannot code it because it's not a DSM-5 behavioral issue. It's not a recognized mental illness--so they can't diagnose it."
Right, it is not in the DSM-5, the compendium of mental health diagnoses for a reason, because it isn't a disorder or a mental health condition for which you can receive treatment. It is a political invention for political reasons formulated by extremist father's rights groups to disenfranchise and disempower mothers and steal their children.
It is also important to note that when Kathi Sorrentino tried to point out that based upon the formulations of the people who promote PAS, Parental Alienation Syndrome cannot exist in the presence of domestic violence and indicated that there was proven domestic violence in her case, the Court refused to hear it.
Instead, Judge Klatt insisted that domestic violence directed towards Ms. Sorrentino had nothing to do with the father's relationship with the child. After drawing that conclusion, the Court then stated to Ms. Sorrentino, since the domestic violence has no bearing on the father/child relationship, "stop talking about domestic violence." This makes no sense. When the father stood up in front of his wife and children and threatened to commit suicide, that inevitably affected both Ms. Sorrentino and Storm. Unfortunately, Judge Klatt preferred to ignore the facts and the evidence, silence a victim of domestic violence, and cover the whole mess up with a false accusation of PAS. This is standard procedure towards victims of domestic violence throughout the State of Connecticut.
It is also important to note that when Kathi Sorrentino tried to point out that based upon the formulations of the people who promote PAS, Parental Alienation Syndrome cannot exist in the presence of domestic violence and indicated that there was proven domestic violence in her case, the Court refused to hear it.
Instead, Judge Klatt insisted that domestic violence directed towards Ms. Sorrentino had nothing to do with the father's relationship with the child. After drawing that conclusion, the Court then stated to Ms. Sorrentino, since the domestic violence has no bearing on the father/child relationship, "stop talking about domestic violence." This makes no sense. When the father stood up in front of his wife and children and threatened to commit suicide, that inevitably affected both Ms. Sorrentino and Storm. Unfortunately, Judge Klatt preferred to ignore the facts and the evidence, silence a victim of domestic violence, and cover the whole mess up with a false accusation of PAS. This is standard procedure towards victims of domestic violence throughout the State of Connecticut.
Then, to compound one piece of nonsense with another, Dr. Eric Frazer continued on and stated, "any mental health treatment that's court involved is not reimbursable by health insurance carriers for that fact."
Well, that is an outright misrepresentation. There are some conditions where mental health interventions that the Court orders is not reimbursable, but there are many others that are. It depends upon what is being ordered (if treatment is for a recognizable condition listed in the DSM-5) and how the mental health professional presents the treatment to the insurance company for reimbursement.
Ultimately, Dr. Frazer outright acknowledged that Kathi Sorrentino did not have the money necessary to pay for the kind of mental health treatment he felt she needed stating, "out of the qualified people none...operate and function at a rate commensurate with Ms. Sorrentino's needs." Further, at another point in the testimony, Dr. Frazer acknowledged that in order to address the so-called parental alienation effectively, members of the family would have to have multiple sessions each week, but again said clearly Kathi Sorrentino couldn't afford that level of treatment.
Dr. Frazer also acknowledged that for Storm's treatment to be successful Storm needed to continue his treatment with Dr. Gruen. However, he stated that Dr. Gruen was on the verge of dropping out of the case because she wasn't getting paid. And who was court ordered to pay the bills for Dr. Gruen? Father was court ordered to pay them, but surprise he wasn't paying them and the Court, again, did nothing about that--no reprimands, no direct insults from the Court on the level that Kathi had to face repeatedly throughout the hearing.
Not only that, father was supposed to be paying for health insurance for the children per court order, but he didn't bother to do that either. Again, he was not held accountable for failing to do so, and Kathi Sorrentino was barred from providing testimony regarding that point because the Court didn't consider it "relevant".
Dr. Frazer also acknowledged that for Storm's treatment to be successful Storm needed to continue his treatment with Dr. Gruen. However, he stated that Dr. Gruen was on the verge of dropping out of the case because she wasn't getting paid. And who was court ordered to pay the bills for Dr. Gruen? Father was court ordered to pay them, but surprise he wasn't paying them and the Court, again, did nothing about that--no reprimands, no direct insults from the Court on the level that Kathi had to face repeatedly throughout the hearing.
Not only that, father was supposed to be paying for health insurance for the children per court order, but he didn't bother to do that either. Again, he was not held accountable for failing to do so, and Kathi Sorrentino was barred from providing testimony regarding that point because the Court didn't consider it "relevant".
Am I wrong, but to be considered in violation of Court Orders, in order to have a dramatic alteration in long standing custody arrangements, it should at the very least be determined that the losing party was willfully in violation of court orders, not that she just couldn't afford to obey them? Also, if one party is going to be held accountable for not obeying court orders, shouldn't the other party be held accountable as well? Clearly, that wasn't going to happen in this courtroom with Judge Corinne Klatt.
As Kathi Sorrentino testified, when she was in court ordered co-parenting counseling prior to the hearing, Mr. Sorrentino had no problem announcing to the counselor, Jane Todorski, that "he did not have to abide to these [court] orders because Dr. Frazer said he could do whatever he wanted." Wow! And he was right too, apparently, but his behavior wasn't considered PAS.
As Kathi Sorrentino testified, when she was in court ordered co-parenting counseling prior to the hearing, Mr. Sorrentino had no problem announcing to the counselor, Jane Todorski, that "he did not have to abide to these [court] orders because Dr. Frazer said he could do whatever he wanted." Wow! And he was right too, apparently, but his behavior wasn't considered PAS.
Overall, what is troubling about this case is how the professionals involved from the Judge, to the opposing attorney, to the GAL psychologist, Dr. Eric Frazer, acted with a level of carelessness and disregard for law and for the wellbeing of the minor child, Storm Sorrentino, that I find inconceivable.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
ANATOMY OF A CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME: THE KATHI SORRENTINO STORY, PART II
As you can deduce, the Sorrentino case was very difficult and time consuming for Connecticut Family Court to handle. In fact, every year, a certain number (10-50% depending on who you are talking to) of CT Family Court divorces end up involving high conflict. In such cases, the Court usually orders an investigation through a Family Study or the appointment of a GAL, or both.
With the first approach the parties agree to work with a private custody evaluator who can do a study in order to figure out what is going on and what the problems are. Litigants who contract for this kind of service are generally people who have money and can afford to pay the exorbitant prices of up to $5,000 - $15,000 or more.
Often, the custody evaluator can then consult with a psychologist who is a member of the only mental health profession truly qualified to do psychological evaluations. That usually costs an additional $5,000 per couple. The results of the psychological evaluation can then be incorporated into the custody evaluation to provide a comprehensive picture of what is going on with a family. It would be irresponsible to bandy about mental health diagnoses without a complete psychological evaluation (which is exactly what happened in the Sorrentino case, by the way).
The second option if the parties are indigent or low income is to have the Family Relations Department of the Connecticut Judicial Branch do a custody evaluation at no charge. Family Relations can also farm out litigants for psychological evaluations at no cost or low cost to be conducted by psychologists who have contracts with the CT Judicial Branch to do such work. The information from those psychological evaluations can also be included in the final report.
Of course, I know of many who are extremely well off who have one or the other party earning six figures who end up having custody evaluations through Family Relations at no charge, so I am not exactly sure how that happens. All I can say is that I have frequently seen it done.
At the same time, if the Court believes it necessary, the judge can appoint a Guardian Ad Litem who can conduct an investigation as well. You can pay for one privately at considerable cost or, through the Children's Law Center obtain a GAL and pay using a sliding scale. Again, a broad range of individuals use the Children's Law Center including a good many middle class, low income, and indigent clients.
Often the work of a custody evaluator and a Guardian Ad Litem overlap, so in many cases you don't have both, you just have one or the other.
In the Sorrentino case, on November 8, 2013, Judge Corinne Klatt ordered that the Sorrentino's hire Dr. Eric Frazer as a private GAL at the charge of $250 per hour, with a $4,000 retainer to be paid by both parties 50/50 within 30 days of the hearing date. That makes perfect sense until you consider the fact that Kathi Sorrentino has no money.
As Ms. Sorrentino stated during the hearing in response to Judge Klatt's orders, "I am indigent...I don't have the money." Further, she stated, "I can bring in my bank statements...I am a full time student...I have not worked in 20 years. I've been an at home Mom." Again, "Your Honor, what can I do if I don't have the money." At another point, Ms. Sorrentino stated that she was received food stamps and fuel assistance and only $204 per week in combined child support and alimony and was ready to submit a financial affidavit to that effect. Even without one, there is a presumption that a person is in poverty if they are on state aid. The court record shows that Kathi has been on state aid since the divorce.
But Judge Klatt was not interested in hearing it and refused to allow Kathi to submit the financial affidavit verifying her statements. Instead, Judge Klatt stated, "I'm ordering you to pay it, ma'am. I am ordering you to pay it, all right."
Again, at a later hearing on December 13, 2013, Judge Klatt made it clear to Kathi Sorrentino that if she did not sign the retainer letter and pay her share of $2,000 by December 16, 2013 at 2:00p.m., Judge Klatt would seriously consider the option of putting Ms. Sorrentino in jail. So what about the rights of litigants to choose their own professionals and establish their own financial arrangements with those professionals--non-existent, I guess.
What happened in the end is that Kathi Sorrentino went to her church which gave her the $2,000 because church leaders felt it was important to keep the mother of a minor child out of jail. In Kathi's Church usually, members pray for people to be moved to come forward with contributions in times of trouble. Compassionate, not wealthy, people pitch in expecting that such a request is not going to be ongoing because the church is not equipped to take care of all the people going through divorce.
But can you imagine a judge bullying the church out of money by threatening one of their members?
And, of course, here is the Court using jail and other sanctions as threats directed towards litigants so they are forced to go begging among friends and parents for money. Make no mistake, these judges know what the consequences are when they confront family court litigants with such ultimatums. As I recall so clearly Judge Constance Epstein saying to me when I ran out of money to pay my attorney's fees, "Go get the money where you got it the last time" which was, as she knew, from my parents. I am not sure what she thought gave her the authority to order my parents to pay my expenses, but that is exactly what she did. The bottom line in Court always is the money one way or another.
What these judges count on is that there are going to be enough people out there who have compassion and who are appalled by the Court's actions that they will contribute.
You may ask, was there some imperative that Dr. Eric Frazer act as the GAL in this case? No, of course, there wasn't, except insofar as Dr. Frazer is the "go to" guy in the State of Connecticut for custody switching schemes.
Was there a much cheaper alternative? Indeed, there was; there was Family Relations, as I mentioned, which is ready and available to provide services to indigent and low income clients such as Kathi Sorrentino (as well as the many wealthy who are able to slip themselves in there). Plus, there was the Children's Law Center which Kathi Sorrentino requested in a motion dated December 16, 2013 which provides GALs at no cost or low cost to family court litigants. Judge Corinne Klatt refused both options.
In the vast majority of situations where the ex husband has the money, but the ex wife does not, Connecticut statute allows for the Court to order the father to pay for the entirety or at least the majority of these GAL fees, rather than go 50/50. This is a standard procedure in Connecticut Family Court when there is inequity in terms of income between the parties. However, the judge, by refusing to allow Kathi Sorrentino's financial affidavit into evidence, side stepped that statute. Among her many actions and statements, this was among the first that indicated the biased predisposition of Judge Corinne Klatt against Kathi Sorrentino which should have disqualified this judge from hearing the case further.
The following year, during a hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Regarding the Care of Custody of Minor Children, the GALs on the Task Force--Sharon Dornfeld and Sue Cousineau--insisted that Family Court judges do not force people to agree to any particular GAL or fee schedule. Clearly, that was a false statement, and not the first one. More to come in Part III.
In the vast majority of situations where the ex husband has the money, but the ex wife does not, Connecticut statute allows for the Court to order the father to pay for the entirety or at least the majority of these GAL fees, rather than go 50/50. This is a standard procedure in Connecticut Family Court when there is inequity in terms of income between the parties. However, the judge, by refusing to allow Kathi Sorrentino's financial affidavit into evidence, side stepped that statute. Among her many actions and statements, this was among the first that indicated the biased predisposition of Judge Corinne Klatt against Kathi Sorrentino which should have disqualified this judge from hearing the case further.
The following year, during a hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Regarding the Care of Custody of Minor Children, the GALs on the Task Force--Sharon Dornfeld and Sue Cousineau--insisted that Family Court judges do not force people to agree to any particular GAL or fee schedule. Clearly, that was a false statement, and not the first one. More to come in Part III.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
ANATOMY OF A CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME: THE KATHY SORRENTINO STORY, PART III
In the book "Man's Search For Meaning" Viktor Frankl stated that of all the many sufferings he endured in the Nazi Concentration camps, the worst he had to bear was not the physical privations, but the verbal abuse he had to put up with on a daily basis. "Why was this so?" he was asked, Because it was so unfair." he answered.
This is no truer than within the context of Connecticut Family Court when, like Kathi Sorrentino, you find yourself a victim of a custody switching scheme, and are subjected to lie after lie after lie in your case where the court demonizes you, ascribes false motives to you, and makes you out to be some awful human being. The intention is to demoralize you, to break you, and ultimately convince you that you are that terrible person they are describing you as.
It must have been extremely tough for Kathi Sorrentino to listen to Judge Klatt pretend that she cared about Kathi's children when the judge was in the middle of implementing a fraudulent custody scheme against her. Witness the following interchange that took place in Court during one of the hearings in this case:
Judge Klatt: "I watched the torment on [your daughter's] face when she listened to your testimony. I watched her break down in tears...I am not going to allow your daughter to testify. You may not care about her well-being and mental health..."
Kathi: "No, I do."
Judge Klatt: "...but I certainly do and I will not allow her to go through any more torture. It was horrendous watching her face listening to you testify. It was heartbreaking..."
Kathi: "And the reason why she was upset is because she's not being heard."
The real reason Kathi's daughter was upset was because she had to watch the Court bully and mistreat her mother, and yes, she was not being heard.
Legally speaking, Judge Klatt had no authority to deny Kathi's daughter the right to provide her testimony before the court because she was over 18 and no longer a minor. Even if she were a minor, she had the right to provide her testimony and were this taken to appeal, my best guess is that Judge Klatt would be criticized for denying the daughter's testimony. Of course, the problem is Judges do what they do, their victims don't always know the law, and so Judges figure they are quite likely to get away with it, as in this case.
Another legal point that is worth making is that the Court allowed Mr. Sorrentino to provide a broad range of testimony and speak at length complaining about his ex-wife. However, he never provided one iota of evidence--in terms of documentation or witness testimony--to prove any of his claims. The Court just gave him credit for what he said on face value. In contrast, when Ms. Sorrentino provided her testimony she backed up everything she said with considerable documentation to prove each one of her points, as well as testimony, but the Court simply dismissed her defense with snide remarks.
Judge Klatt's disrespect and hyperbole was the kind of "blaming the victim" behavior she indulged in through the hearings and which, again, should have disqualified her from the case.
Did Judge Klatt have the faintest idea what was going on with Kathi's daughter or with the Sorrentinos?
No.
The Judge's deliberate misinterpretations and her disregard for any testimony provided to support Kathi Sorrentino's position are exactly what Viktor Frankl found so unfair when the Nazi's did the same thing to him and other Jewish concentration camp victims.
Did Judge Klatt have the faintest idea what was going on with Kathi's daughter or with the Sorrentinos?
No.
The Judge's deliberate misinterpretations and her disregard for any testimony provided to support Kathi Sorrentino's position are exactly what Viktor Frankl found so unfair when the Nazi's did the same thing to him and other Jewish concentration camp victims.
Judge Corinne Klatt was legally obligated to allow Kathi's daughter to provide her testimony. But she chose not to. Her words were a disingenuous exercise in hypocrisy, pure and simple--a means to avoid allowing the daughter to testify on the stand and bring the truth out into the open.
And what is the truth?
The truth is that in Kathi Sorrentino's case Dr. Eric Frazer produced a report that was grossly substandard and negligent in its content and format.
The report was simply a tool for a custody switching scheme, one which I have no doubt that Judge Corinne Klatt was complicit in because she is not a fool. All the defects that I notice regarding Dr. Frazer's report as a layperson, I have no doubt Judge Klatt was aware of as well. She has seen hundreds of these reports in the course of her work as a family court judge, and she knows exactly how these reports should be written. So when she saw the piece of trash that Dr. Eric Frazer provided, it would be naïve to think she didn't know.
So what, you ask is the matter with the GAL report that Dr. Eric Frazer submitted to the court in the Sorrentino case?
The answer is that Dr. Frazer took one only month to conduct the investigation before providing his report, and the report itself is only a single page in length.
There is no way that a GAL can conduct an adequate investigation in a single month. In addition, some of that time constituted the Christmas and New Year's season which shaves off at least a week of that time, so he probably spent just three weeks on it.
Further, in terms of witnesses, Dr. Frazer stated in the report that he consulted only five individuals other than the parties and the child, Storm, himself. He does not indicate that he spoke to the daughter, although it makes no sense that he wouldn't. Even if the daughter disagrees with him, all of that is important data and any fair minded evaluator would have included it.
One of these witnesses, Diane Safran, a co-parenting coordinator, had not been involved with the Sorrentino's case for over twelve years, and for that reason she simply stated that she refused to discuss the case with Dr. Fraser at all. Nonetheless, Dr. Fraser cited her as providing the basis for his determination that Ms. Sorrentino was an alienator. How could he do that without talking to her? Another co-parenting coordinator Dr. Fraser mentioned had not been involved with the family in three years.
Ordinarily, in a properly written GAL report, I would expect testimony included from a broad range of individuals--friends, family, school personnel, mental health professionals--the whole gamut--at least up to ten or more, in order to get a full picture of what is going on in a family. Not to emphasize quantity over quality, but there should be some visible attempt to actually do the job and collect information from a reasonable variety of sources who have actually had recent contact with the family.
I understand this is a GAL report and not a custody evaluation, but I do think I there are minimum standards.
The majority of GAL investigations take at least three months, and, at least in my case, a final report of seven pages single spaced typed is more what you would expect from a reasonably qualified GAL.
I have a copy of a friend's custody evaluation through family relations which took six months to complete, and is 20 pages long--again, single spaced typed. And when I look at my own custody evaluation, it took a year to complete and was 27 pages single spaced typed. Each of these reports includes input from 15 - 20 witnesses.
How do you take a 14 year old boy who has spent his entire life in the primary care of his mother and remove him from the only home he has ever known based upon a three week investigation resulting in a one page report focused on a single topic: parental alienation disorder, a diagnosis that doesn't even exist in the diagnostic manual for mental health disorders and which is widely known to be quack science--a report that includes lots of opinion, but no actual facts. If that isn't a setup, I don't know what is.
Monday, January 19, 2015
PAUL BOYNE EXPOSES FRAUD IN THE KLINGBERG CENTER TRANSITIONS IN PARENTING (TIP) PROGRAM AIDED AND ABETTED BY THE CT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH!
Sometimes I can get really snarky about other people. Recently, I was sitting with a friend of mine, laughing and making fun of a mutual friend of ours. This friend who majored in something like pottery making was now working for the state in an annoyingly lucrative position as what you might call a home visitor. The source of our mirth was the fact that when she signed off on paperwork during the course of her duties, she was really proud to report to us that she was listed as a "clinician". We were like what part of pottery making prepared her to be a so-called "clinician." I will admit there was a certain level of jealousy in our attitude. I'd love to make oodles of money in a state job for which I am not in the least qualified!
On a similar note, I recently participated in a conference up in Boston where I sat at a table with a gentleman who identified himself as working in another state in a position as a psychologist. Further into the conversation, I asked "So where did you get your Ph.D.?" Oh, no, he was quick to correct me, I don't have a Ph.D., I just have a bachelor's degree in psychology--this is simply how the department identifies my position. Oh well, I told myself, at least he didn't major in pottery making--he has some background in the field.
However, this does bring up an important subject--how the CT state government allows agencies funded by state and federal money to use deceptive job titles in order to obscure exactly what qualifications their workers actually have, and what services they are providing. This is a form of fraud and it is exactly what Paul Boyne experienced in 2012 when he embarked upon what he understood to be reunification counseling with his children at the TIP program operated by Klingberg Family Center under the auspices of the CT Judicial Branch.
Paul Boyne was divorced in 2007 and his ex-wife was given sole custody of their three children as well as sole decision making in regard to when Paul could see the children. As a consequence, Mr. Boyne did not see his children for several years until October 24, 2012, when Judge Gerald Adelman ordered him and the children to participate in reunification therapy with the Transitions in Parenting or TIP program.
The Access and Visitation Programs run by the CT Judicial Branch at the Klingberg Center have two separate parts: 1. The Supervised Visitation Program and 2. The TIP Program.
The first program, i.e. the Supervised Visitation Program provides a “safe, substance-free, closely-monitored and controlled environment for children to have contact with their parent. A Family Support Worker who is qualified on the bachelor's level supervises the non-custodial parent’s visits with the children. In contrast, the Transitions in Parenting program provides "a master's level therapist" to deal with "the complex emotional issues involved when a parent re-enters a child's life after a long separation or enters the child's life for the first time." The purpose of the program is to "set up the basis for a healthy, positive, and lasting parent-child relationship." This is the program that the Court ordered Paul Boyne and his children to participate in.
Although Mr. Boyne felt initially enthusiastic about the program, before long he realized this was just another situation where family court was setting him up to fail.
For one thing, the Klingberg Center allowed the mother to play games and sabotage the TIP sessions. For instance, on December 18, 2012 she cancelled a scheduled visit of father with the children the day before it was supposed to take place. This made it difficult for Paul Boyne who lives in Virginia and has to make the long trip up to Connecticut when he wants to see his kids. The Court Order required that the parties make accommodations for the fact that Mr. Boyne lived out of state which would, you would think, include providing sufficient advanced notice for appointments at the Klingberg Center.
A similar situation took place on January 4, 2012 when the mother refused to affirm or deny whether she intended to bring the children to Klingberg for the father's scheduled visit with them the next day. Up to 3:30pm, she was still responding to the inquiry as to whether the kids would be there for the visit by saying mysteriously, "I'll get back to you." This eventually prompted Mr. Boyne to file a motion with the court demanding she stop doing things like that, but, of course, knowing how the Court operates, this would make him appear to be the nuisance. As one family court insider once put it, when it comes to family court, “You can’t stop a bully!” Because family court seems to like bullies and allows them to carry on with their nonsense freely.
The second thing Paul noticed is that he wasn't getting the program that he signed up for. Writing to the program about his observations on the therapy and Ms. Kathy Service, the social worker in charge of his case, he stated, "The Transitions in Parenting (TIP) program is a "clinical intervention which is to identify and treat the underlying impasses that interfere with [father's] access to the children" However, "Kath S[ervice] has failed to understand the State's requirement. She has not provided any identification of the underlying impasse." Not only that, Paul Boyne observed that "there is no protocol being applied and no evidence provided of any impasse related to the children." As it turned out, the Klingberg Clinic was actually providing him supervised visitation, not the reunification therapy which was supposed to be provided through the TIP program he described and which had been court ordered by Judge Adelman.
One clue in to this was the fact that not long after starting at the Klingberg Center, Mr. Boyne received a copy of the Child Intake form which was alleged to reproduce in full and in detail the children making rude and insulting remarks about their father on the level of "We don't want to have anything to do with him" and showed very little indication that the therapist had attempted to assist the children in understanding how these attitudes came about. This document was so upsetting that, in a later "Notice" to the court dated January 4, 2013, Paul Boyne identified the reported conversation as an indication of child abuse. The point of the TIP program is supposed to be to rebuild the relationship between the parent and children, not to drive them further apart or create permanent, written barriers to their relationship.
In addition, Paul Boyne participated in two visits which were overseen by the TIP social worker, Ms. Kathy Service, but which didn't include any kind of psychotherapy. In a later report on these visits, all Ms. Service did was describe what happened during the visits and reproduced what Mr. Boyne and the children said to each other, which is exactly what you would get if all that she was doing was supervised visitation.
Faced with this kind of ongoing obstruction coming directly from the Klingberg program which was supposed to be helping him, Paul Boyne investigated Ms. Kathy Service further and discovered that even though she had a masters in social work, she was not licensed in the State of Connecticut. Further, Paul Boyne reported, it turned out that Kathy Service had tried and failed to pass the licensing exam on at least three occasions and possibly up to five. This did not bode well for the quality of professional providing services with the TIP program and, as far as Paul Boyne was concerned, possibly explained why his family was receiving less than competent services.
Like most people, he had assumed that any professional hired by the state and playing such a crucial role in the well being of his children would be licensed. By law, a social worker who does not have a license is not allowed to practice psychotherapy without proper supervision and while providing such services must be identified as a social worker intern. Since, at that time, Paul believed that he was receiving therapy services from the TIP program he viewed this situation as a form of fraud. As a result, Paul Boyne ultimately decided to file a complaint against Kathy Service with the Department of Public Health (DPH) on May 6, 2013.
At this point, Paul Boyne had no idea that what he had actually been given was supervised visitation, not reunification therapy as provided by the TIP program. As stated before, supervised visitation does not require a license or even a master's degree. The fact that the Klingberg Center pretended to Paul Boyne that he was getting therapy with the TIP program when all they were doing was supervised visitation, was highly deceitful.
Essentially, the Klingberg Center placed Paul Boyne and his family in a state of ongoing confusion, which I believe was deliberately created, regarding what Ms. Kathy Service was supposed to be doing based on Judge Adelman's Court Order, i.e. reunification therapy, versus what Mr. Boyne sensed that she was actually doing, which was supervised visitation. I believe this was a purposeful strategy arising somewhere in the relationship between Hartford Family Court and the Klingberg Center.
The end result was that Paul Boyne got stuck in a maze of obfuscation which he had to battle his way out of. I myself, as a member of the public, was completely mystified. Just the Department of Public Health's internal documents alone are so full of complex bureaucratic language it is almost impossible to know what happened. I believe the DPH and/or the Klingberg Center did this deliberately to avoid being held accountable. Nonetheless, I will do my best to clarify what went on.
Once the Department of Public Health received Paul Boyne's complaint, it was assigned to one of their investigators, Mary Beth Mendes. It was also referred to an outside consultant--Mr. Kurt Fuchs, a social worker practicing in Farmington, CT--for further investigation. On September 4, 2013, Mr. Fuchs wrote a report with the underlying presumption that the TIP program had been applied in Paul Boyne's case.
Essentially, Mr. Fuchs' report absolved the TIP program and Ms. Kathy Service of any wrongdoing for practicing therapy without a license by stating that Ms. Service had not been providing therapy when she was working with the Boyne family because the TIP Program is not therapy. As he stated, "The Transition in Parenting program . . . use[s] terms such as 'clinical, therapist, and therapy" in their description of the type of services provided and the qualifications of the program staff who are delivering said services. A closer review of the documents reveals that these services do not meet the criteria of 'clinical social work'. Further he stated, "While Ms. Service's report to the court identifies her as a "therapist," I found no evidence in the documents that Ms. Service was either expected to--or conducted--"therapy" or "clinical social work" that would have required the possession of a clinical license.
Yes, but she was pretending to do it while actually doing supervised visitation instead. But wait a minute, what Mr. Fuchs is saying, is even if she had been applying the TIP program in Paul Boyne's case, that would not have been social work which required a license either. So what we have is a deception underlying another deception.
In other words, just like my friend the pottery maker, Kathy Service was not a clinician. But you see, this is the problem. When you use such terms with the public, and the public associates such terms with the actual licensed practice of therapy or social work, they will actually believe that they are dealing with mental health professionals. Using terminology deliberately which the TIP program and the DPH are well aware raises certain expectations, and using them in such a manner as to deceive, is essentially a form of fraud.
In her report on the investigation dated September 26, 2013, Mary Beth Mendes also acknowledged that the TIP program used terms that would raise the expectation that people like Paul Boyne would assume he was dealing with a qualified, licensed mental health professional and was receiving legitimate therapy. However, according to Ms. Mendes, in fact he was not. Going through the documents related to the program Ms. Mendes found the following:
1. On the child intake form, Kathy Service was listed as a "therapist";
On a similar note, I recently participated in a conference up in Boston where I sat at a table with a gentleman who identified himself as working in another state in a position as a psychologist. Further into the conversation, I asked "So where did you get your Ph.D.?" Oh, no, he was quick to correct me, I don't have a Ph.D., I just have a bachelor's degree in psychology--this is simply how the department identifies my position. Oh well, I told myself, at least he didn't major in pottery making--he has some background in the field.
However, this does bring up an important subject--how the CT state government allows agencies funded by state and federal money to use deceptive job titles in order to obscure exactly what qualifications their workers actually have, and what services they are providing. This is a form of fraud and it is exactly what Paul Boyne experienced in 2012 when he embarked upon what he understood to be reunification counseling with his children at the TIP program operated by Klingberg Family Center under the auspices of the CT Judicial Branch.
Paul Boyne was divorced in 2007 and his ex-wife was given sole custody of their three children as well as sole decision making in regard to when Paul could see the children. As a consequence, Mr. Boyne did not see his children for several years until October 24, 2012, when Judge Gerald Adelman ordered him and the children to participate in reunification therapy with the Transitions in Parenting or TIP program.
The Access and Visitation Programs run by the CT Judicial Branch at the Klingberg Center have two separate parts: 1. The Supervised Visitation Program and 2. The TIP Program.
The first program, i.e. the Supervised Visitation Program provides a “safe, substance-free, closely-monitored and controlled environment for children to have contact with their parent. A Family Support Worker who is qualified on the bachelor's level supervises the non-custodial parent’s visits with the children. In contrast, the Transitions in Parenting program provides "a master's level therapist" to deal with "the complex emotional issues involved when a parent re-enters a child's life after a long separation or enters the child's life for the first time." The purpose of the program is to "set up the basis for a healthy, positive, and lasting parent-child relationship." This is the program that the Court ordered Paul Boyne and his children to participate in.
Although Mr. Boyne felt initially enthusiastic about the program, before long he realized this was just another situation where family court was setting him up to fail.
For one thing, the Klingberg Center allowed the mother to play games and sabotage the TIP sessions. For instance, on December 18, 2012 she cancelled a scheduled visit of father with the children the day before it was supposed to take place. This made it difficult for Paul Boyne who lives in Virginia and has to make the long trip up to Connecticut when he wants to see his kids. The Court Order required that the parties make accommodations for the fact that Mr. Boyne lived out of state which would, you would think, include providing sufficient advanced notice for appointments at the Klingberg Center.
A similar situation took place on January 4, 2012 when the mother refused to affirm or deny whether she intended to bring the children to Klingberg for the father's scheduled visit with them the next day. Up to 3:30pm, she was still responding to the inquiry as to whether the kids would be there for the visit by saying mysteriously, "I'll get back to you." This eventually prompted Mr. Boyne to file a motion with the court demanding she stop doing things like that, but, of course, knowing how the Court operates, this would make him appear to be the nuisance. As one family court insider once put it, when it comes to family court, “You can’t stop a bully!” Because family court seems to like bullies and allows them to carry on with their nonsense freely.
The second thing Paul noticed is that he wasn't getting the program that he signed up for. Writing to the program about his observations on the therapy and Ms. Kathy Service, the social worker in charge of his case, he stated, "The Transitions in Parenting (TIP) program is a "clinical intervention which is to identify and treat the underlying impasses that interfere with [father's] access to the children" However, "Kath S[ervice] has failed to understand the State's requirement. She has not provided any identification of the underlying impasse." Not only that, Paul Boyne observed that "there is no protocol being applied and no evidence provided of any impasse related to the children." As it turned out, the Klingberg Clinic was actually providing him supervised visitation, not the reunification therapy which was supposed to be provided through the TIP program he described and which had been court ordered by Judge Adelman.
One clue in to this was the fact that not long after starting at the Klingberg Center, Mr. Boyne received a copy of the Child Intake form which was alleged to reproduce in full and in detail the children making rude and insulting remarks about their father on the level of "We don't want to have anything to do with him" and showed very little indication that the therapist had attempted to assist the children in understanding how these attitudes came about. This document was so upsetting that, in a later "Notice" to the court dated January 4, 2013, Paul Boyne identified the reported conversation as an indication of child abuse. The point of the TIP program is supposed to be to rebuild the relationship between the parent and children, not to drive them further apart or create permanent, written barriers to their relationship.
In addition, Paul Boyne participated in two visits which were overseen by the TIP social worker, Ms. Kathy Service, but which didn't include any kind of psychotherapy. In a later report on these visits, all Ms. Service did was describe what happened during the visits and reproduced what Mr. Boyne and the children said to each other, which is exactly what you would get if all that she was doing was supervised visitation.
Faced with this kind of ongoing obstruction coming directly from the Klingberg program which was supposed to be helping him, Paul Boyne investigated Ms. Kathy Service further and discovered that even though she had a masters in social work, she was not licensed in the State of Connecticut. Further, Paul Boyne reported, it turned out that Kathy Service had tried and failed to pass the licensing exam on at least three occasions and possibly up to five. This did not bode well for the quality of professional providing services with the TIP program and, as far as Paul Boyne was concerned, possibly explained why his family was receiving less than competent services.
Like most people, he had assumed that any professional hired by the state and playing such a crucial role in the well being of his children would be licensed. By law, a social worker who does not have a license is not allowed to practice psychotherapy without proper supervision and while providing such services must be identified as a social worker intern. Since, at that time, Paul believed that he was receiving therapy services from the TIP program he viewed this situation as a form of fraud. As a result, Paul Boyne ultimately decided to file a complaint against Kathy Service with the Department of Public Health (DPH) on May 6, 2013.
At this point, Paul Boyne had no idea that what he had actually been given was supervised visitation, not reunification therapy as provided by the TIP program. As stated before, supervised visitation does not require a license or even a master's degree. The fact that the Klingberg Center pretended to Paul Boyne that he was getting therapy with the TIP program when all they were doing was supervised visitation, was highly deceitful.
Essentially, the Klingberg Center placed Paul Boyne and his family in a state of ongoing confusion, which I believe was deliberately created, regarding what Ms. Kathy Service was supposed to be doing based on Judge Adelman's Court Order, i.e. reunification therapy, versus what Mr. Boyne sensed that she was actually doing, which was supervised visitation. I believe this was a purposeful strategy arising somewhere in the relationship between Hartford Family Court and the Klingberg Center.
The end result was that Paul Boyne got stuck in a maze of obfuscation which he had to battle his way out of. I myself, as a member of the public, was completely mystified. Just the Department of Public Health's internal documents alone are so full of complex bureaucratic language it is almost impossible to know what happened. I believe the DPH and/or the Klingberg Center did this deliberately to avoid being held accountable. Nonetheless, I will do my best to clarify what went on.
Once the Department of Public Health received Paul Boyne's complaint, it was assigned to one of their investigators, Mary Beth Mendes. It was also referred to an outside consultant--Mr. Kurt Fuchs, a social worker practicing in Farmington, CT--for further investigation. On September 4, 2013, Mr. Fuchs wrote a report with the underlying presumption that the TIP program had been applied in Paul Boyne's case.
Essentially, Mr. Fuchs' report absolved the TIP program and Ms. Kathy Service of any wrongdoing for practicing therapy without a license by stating that Ms. Service had not been providing therapy when she was working with the Boyne family because the TIP Program is not therapy. As he stated, "The Transition in Parenting program . . . use[s] terms such as 'clinical, therapist, and therapy" in their description of the type of services provided and the qualifications of the program staff who are delivering said services. A closer review of the documents reveals that these services do not meet the criteria of 'clinical social work'. Further he stated, "While Ms. Service's report to the court identifies her as a "therapist," I found no evidence in the documents that Ms. Service was either expected to--or conducted--"therapy" or "clinical social work" that would have required the possession of a clinical license.
Yes, but she was pretending to do it while actually doing supervised visitation instead. But wait a minute, what Mr. Fuchs is saying, is even if she had been applying the TIP program in Paul Boyne's case, that would not have been social work which required a license either. So what we have is a deception underlying another deception.
In other words, just like my friend the pottery maker, Kathy Service was not a clinician. But you see, this is the problem. When you use such terms with the public, and the public associates such terms with the actual licensed practice of therapy or social work, they will actually believe that they are dealing with mental health professionals. Using terminology deliberately which the TIP program and the DPH are well aware raises certain expectations, and using them in such a manner as to deceive, is essentially a form of fraud.
In her report on the investigation dated September 26, 2013, Mary Beth Mendes also acknowledged that the TIP program used terms that would raise the expectation that people like Paul Boyne would assume he was dealing with a qualified, licensed mental health professional and was receiving legitimate therapy. However, according to Ms. Mendes, in fact he was not. Going through the documents related to the program Ms. Mendes found the following:
1. On the child intake form, Kathy Service was listed as a "therapist";
2. On the client agreement form for the TIP program, Kathy Service was listed as a "therapist";
3. On the fact sheet for Access and Visitation, Kathy Service is referred to as a "therapist";
4. On the Access and Visitation Program TIP sheet, Kathy Service is referred to as a "master's level therapist";
5. On a Staffing Pattern document Kathy Service is referred to as a "master's level therapist" who provides "individual and family therapy" in the TIP program;
6. On a Staff Experience and Qualifications document it states that Kathy Service has been "providing therapeutic services to many clients in the TIP program";
7. On a family relations report from Hartford Superior Court, Kathy Service was also referred to as a "therapist" throughout the report.
Analyzing the situation further Ms. Mendes stated, "On [Kathy Service's]reports of her meetings with [Paul Boyne] and his children, her observations are referred to as "Counselor's Observations". Throughout these reports [Kathy Service] refers to herself as "this therapist". Ms. Mendes also noted that "The descriptions of the services of the TIP Program and the qualifications of the program staff who are delivering these services include the terms "clinical", "therapist" and "therapy".
So how does a program sponsored by the CT Judicial Branch and operated by the highly regarded Klingberg Center get away with implying that they are providing mental health care and using staff that are licensed social workers when, in fact, they are not?
The explanation that Mary Beth Mendes gave was that the Klingberg Center can do it because terms such as "clinical", "therapist", and "therapy" are not protected terms under Connecticut General Statutes, which means that pretty much anybody can use these terms as they please. In other words, my friend the pottery maker who styles herself a clinician is no more a clinician than I am, yet because there is no law to prevent her from using the term exactly as she pleases, she can use any one of those terms to refer to herself, as could I if I chose to. Right now, I could hang a sign right outside my house stating "psychotherapist" and no one could stop me. And, when it comes to my pottery making friend, in terms of her own employment, the State of Connecticut is allowing her to do just that when she signs her name next to the word clinician without have a single qualification that would justify her doing so.
The question is, however, why would the State of Connecticut allow its own employees who are supposed to be serving the public to exercise these kinds of deceptions on Connecticut citizens. Further, why would the Klingberg Center even consider acting this way, particularly when trust is essential to achieving success when it comes to working with families?
This leads us to our next question: Is this true? Is it true that the TIP program does not constitute social work? Or is this explanation that Kurt Fuchs provided simply an elaborately staged fraud constructed as a means to allow the DPH to avoid holding the Klingberg Center accountable for providing mental health counseling using personnel who are unlicensed? Let's look at this issue for a moment.
Again, the Transitions in Parenting program brochure states that it provides "a master's level therapist" to deal with "the complex emotional issues involved when a parent re-enters a child's life after a long separation or enters the child's life for the first time." Again, the purpose of the program is to "set up the basis for a healthy, positive, and lasting parent-child relationship."
Doesn't this sound like therapy to the average person--learning to deal with complex emotional issues, changing behavior so that a once damaged relationship can be re-established on a more positive level?
According to social worker Kurt Fuchs social work only occurs when "biopsychosocial assessments are conducted, psychiatric diagnoses formulated, and theories of behavior, behavior change, psychological processes, psychopathology, etc. are deliberately applied to fundamentally change levels of emotional function (anxiety, depression, etc.), individual behaviors and/or interpersonal/familial relations." But how many of us have undergone therapy with a licensed social worker where there was no biopsychosocial assessment or treatment plans whatsoever--marriage counseling comes to mind for instance--but still there was an expectation that therapy was taking place with the understanding that a fundamental change in behavior would occur?
Further, it would be impossible to see a difference between social work as Kurt Fuchs describes it in his report versus how the Klingberg Center describes its own services. For instance, take one excerpt from a letter the program wrote to Pamela Sarno of the CT Judicial Branch. "Klingberg will operate a therapeutic, supervised reunification program called Transition in Parenting which will provide guidance and therapeutic support for children and their parents during the process of establishing or re-building contact between the child and his or her estranged parent." In other words, "fundamentally change the levels of emotional function" between parents and children, what essentially adds up to social work!
In its application for funding from the CT Judicial Branch, Klingberg describes the TIP program further: "The purpose of the Transitions in parenting Program has been to provide individual therapy, family therapy, and sibling therapy as indicated to families referred to this program." The intention of the program is to "help reduce anger or communication problems between the parents, and to help parents objectively focus on the best interests of the child." Again, this appears to me to be an exact definition of social work.
Who provides these services? According to Klingberg, "Services are provided by a Masters Level Marriage and Family Therapist and/or a Master's Level Social Worker." So they go to all the trouble of hiring a person who has a master's degree, but they make sure that none of the "therapy" they provide actually constitutes social work? How likely is that?
At the very least, such wording raises the expectation among administrators and potential clients that the services the Klingberg will provide constitutes social work. And if that is not Klingberg's intention, then such languaging is deliberately deceptive and constitutes fraud.
It is also worth taking a look at whether those who denied that the TIP program was social work took any decisive actions based on their conclusions. For example, in his letter to the DPH, Mr. Kurt Fuchs stated that the CSSD and Klingberg created confusion by their use of the terms "clinical, therapist, and therapy." Did he recommend they stop that? No. Is there any indication that the DPH advised them to stop doing that for the sake of honesty and transparency towards their clients? No. Has either the CSSD or Klingberg corrected any of their pamphlets or information sheets so as to avoid misleading future clients the way that they allegedly confused Paul Boyne? No. Perhaps this is because the explanation they provided was simply concocted as a means to shut Paul Boyne up and has no actual basis in fact.
Attorneys, Judges, members of the 2014 task force on custody have speculated that the problems in family court arise from the fact that a small minority of litigants have mental health problems. In reality, the problem is that agencies such as the CSSD, the Klingberg Center, and the Department of Public health chose to carry out such a complex scheme to undercut Paul Boyne's ability to reestablish his relationship with his children. That's enough to drive any person, no matter how stable, right over the edge! Wouldn't it be much more fair to state that Paul Boyne is the "identified patient" trapped in a sick relationship with deeply dysfunctional state agencies (as I would suggest most family court victims are)?
The bottom line is that the Klingberg Center, for whatever the reason, had no intention of providing reunification therapy to Paul Boyne; they simply wanted to get rid of him. So Instead, they provided supervised visitation which they anticipated would be deeply aggravating to him.
Thus, in her letter to Kathy Service dated November 5, 2014 informing her that the DPH has found no violations in the case, Kathleen Boulware stated, "Your monitoring of Mr. Boyne and his minor children relating to their reunification did not constitute the practice of social work." Oh, so that is what she was doing; she was "monitoring" not "dealing with complex emotional issues" related to reunifying a parent with his children. No wonder, as Ms. Boulware continued on to state to Ms. Kathy Service, "your responsibilities in the "Transition in Parenting" program do not constitute clinical social work and you were therefore not required to have a license at the time." Of course, you weren't, because what you were doing was supervised visitation!
So to Paul who thought he was getting the TIP Program, the DPH said, the service provided was not social work, but to Ms. Kathy Service who knew very well what she was doing, Kathleen Boulware said the service you provided was only supervised visitation, so you are not liable. This left Paul Boyne with the impression that reunification therapy is not counseling, when the reality is that he never got counseling; he only obtained supervised visitation. This was a very slick way to avoid accountability, and it was basically unanswerable because Paul didn't know what was going on.
On November 5, the same day that she sent a letter to Ms. Kathy Service, Kathleen Boulware sent another letter directly to Paul Boyne stating, "the Department has concluded that no violations of the statutes governing social work practice have been identified." This was actually a full year after Mary Beth Mendes had submitted the results of her investigation to the department, which meant that the Department of Public Health simply sat on the results before sending them out. Why? Just so they could hold Paul Boyne in suspense and hold out the hope that he would eventually receive some satisfaction, when in reality they fully intended to continue to obstruct him.
Meanwhile, Paul Boyne had to spend his time at the beginning of 2013 filing motions to prevent the work Kathy Service did at the Klingberg from being used against him in court since their contents arose from an incomplete course of treatment and therefore misrepresented what was actually going on in his relationship with his children. So then he looked silly. "Isn't this a program that he wanted?" the Court might say. With the kind of convoluted and deceptive explanations the DPH provided, it would be very difficult for Paul to explain how Klingberg sabotaged his efforts to reengage with his children.
As I see it, when Hartford Family Court sent Paul Boyne to the Klingberg Center--of course you can never know what were the originating sources of the problem, but they are there--he was set up by being placed in the supervised visitation program instead of in the TIP counseling program as he expected--a course of action that was very disruptive to the entire process, and deliberately so.
One of the criteria the Court considered when deciding whether Paul Boyne could see his children again was the ability he had to work productively with the staff at Klingberg in pursuit of reunification. However, after being harassed by his ex-wife and not having any recourse, after having to read the extended negative comments about him his children were reputed to have said on an Agency intake form, and then receiving improper treatment, Mr. Boyne was simply unable to do it. The way the Klingberg Center carried out their form of reunification therapy, the price of the restoration of Paul Boyne's right to parent was the ability he had to accept humiliation and abuse without complaint--we've all been there!--and clearly, as a result of all the harassment, he failed to have the emotional reserves to do it.
Aside from very real human rights violations, the Klingberg Center was in contempt for violating a very clear order from Judge Adelman indicating that Paul Boyne was supposed to be in the TIP program, not the supervised visitation program. But with the collusion of the DPH, the Center will never be held accountable.
What is the bottom line? Paul's hopes for a reunification with his children were dashed and he was back at square one after all that investment of time and energy. My friend the pottery maker is still out there providing services for people who think she is a "clinician." There are unlicensed mental health professionals out there working for the state and providing therapy for clients who are unaware that they are not licensed. But should they ever figure it out, they will be told the therapy they received was not actually therapy. The Klingberg Center provides both supervised visitation and the TIP Program interchangeably as it pleases, depending on whether they want to harass people or not. And the Department of Public Health continues to allow places like the Klingberg Center to defraud citizens like Paul as well as the general public.
Analyzing the situation further Ms. Mendes stated, "On [Kathy Service's]reports of her meetings with [Paul Boyne] and his children, her observations are referred to as "Counselor's Observations". Throughout these reports [Kathy Service] refers to herself as "this therapist". Ms. Mendes also noted that "The descriptions of the services of the TIP Program and the qualifications of the program staff who are delivering these services include the terms "clinical", "therapist" and "therapy".
So how does a program sponsored by the CT Judicial Branch and operated by the highly regarded Klingberg Center get away with implying that they are providing mental health care and using staff that are licensed social workers when, in fact, they are not?
The explanation that Mary Beth Mendes gave was that the Klingberg Center can do it because terms such as "clinical", "therapist", and "therapy" are not protected terms under Connecticut General Statutes, which means that pretty much anybody can use these terms as they please. In other words, my friend the pottery maker who styles herself a clinician is no more a clinician than I am, yet because there is no law to prevent her from using the term exactly as she pleases, she can use any one of those terms to refer to herself, as could I if I chose to. Right now, I could hang a sign right outside my house stating "psychotherapist" and no one could stop me. And, when it comes to my pottery making friend, in terms of her own employment, the State of Connecticut is allowing her to do just that when she signs her name next to the word clinician without have a single qualification that would justify her doing so.
The question is, however, why would the State of Connecticut allow its own employees who are supposed to be serving the public to exercise these kinds of deceptions on Connecticut citizens. Further, why would the Klingberg Center even consider acting this way, particularly when trust is essential to achieving success when it comes to working with families?
This leads us to our next question: Is this true? Is it true that the TIP program does not constitute social work? Or is this explanation that Kurt Fuchs provided simply an elaborately staged fraud constructed as a means to allow the DPH to avoid holding the Klingberg Center accountable for providing mental health counseling using personnel who are unlicensed? Let's look at this issue for a moment.
Again, the Transitions in Parenting program brochure states that it provides "a master's level therapist" to deal with "the complex emotional issues involved when a parent re-enters a child's life after a long separation or enters the child's life for the first time." Again, the purpose of the program is to "set up the basis for a healthy, positive, and lasting parent-child relationship."
Doesn't this sound like therapy to the average person--learning to deal with complex emotional issues, changing behavior so that a once damaged relationship can be re-established on a more positive level?
According to social worker Kurt Fuchs social work only occurs when "biopsychosocial assessments are conducted, psychiatric diagnoses formulated, and theories of behavior, behavior change, psychological processes, psychopathology, etc. are deliberately applied to fundamentally change levels of emotional function (anxiety, depression, etc.), individual behaviors and/or interpersonal/familial relations." But how many of us have undergone therapy with a licensed social worker where there was no biopsychosocial assessment or treatment plans whatsoever--marriage counseling comes to mind for instance--but still there was an expectation that therapy was taking place with the understanding that a fundamental change in behavior would occur?
Further, it would be impossible to see a difference between social work as Kurt Fuchs describes it in his report versus how the Klingberg Center describes its own services. For instance, take one excerpt from a letter the program wrote to Pamela Sarno of the CT Judicial Branch. "Klingberg will operate a therapeutic, supervised reunification program called Transition in Parenting which will provide guidance and therapeutic support for children and their parents during the process of establishing or re-building contact between the child and his or her estranged parent." In other words, "fundamentally change the levels of emotional function" between parents and children, what essentially adds up to social work!
In its application for funding from the CT Judicial Branch, Klingberg describes the TIP program further: "The purpose of the Transitions in parenting Program has been to provide individual therapy, family therapy, and sibling therapy as indicated to families referred to this program." The intention of the program is to "help reduce anger or communication problems between the parents, and to help parents objectively focus on the best interests of the child." Again, this appears to me to be an exact definition of social work.
Who provides these services? According to Klingberg, "Services are provided by a Masters Level Marriage and Family Therapist and/or a Master's Level Social Worker." So they go to all the trouble of hiring a person who has a master's degree, but they make sure that none of the "therapy" they provide actually constitutes social work? How likely is that?
At the very least, such wording raises the expectation among administrators and potential clients that the services the Klingberg will provide constitutes social work. And if that is not Klingberg's intention, then such languaging is deliberately deceptive and constitutes fraud.
It is also worth taking a look at whether those who denied that the TIP program was social work took any decisive actions based on their conclusions. For example, in his letter to the DPH, Mr. Kurt Fuchs stated that the CSSD and Klingberg created confusion by their use of the terms "clinical, therapist, and therapy." Did he recommend they stop that? No. Is there any indication that the DPH advised them to stop doing that for the sake of honesty and transparency towards their clients? No. Has either the CSSD or Klingberg corrected any of their pamphlets or information sheets so as to avoid misleading future clients the way that they allegedly confused Paul Boyne? No. Perhaps this is because the explanation they provided was simply concocted as a means to shut Paul Boyne up and has no actual basis in fact.
Attorneys, Judges, members of the 2014 task force on custody have speculated that the problems in family court arise from the fact that a small minority of litigants have mental health problems. In reality, the problem is that agencies such as the CSSD, the Klingberg Center, and the Department of Public health chose to carry out such a complex scheme to undercut Paul Boyne's ability to reestablish his relationship with his children. That's enough to drive any person, no matter how stable, right over the edge! Wouldn't it be much more fair to state that Paul Boyne is the "identified patient" trapped in a sick relationship with deeply dysfunctional state agencies (as I would suggest most family court victims are)?
The bottom line is that the Klingberg Center, for whatever the reason, had no intention of providing reunification therapy to Paul Boyne; they simply wanted to get rid of him. So Instead, they provided supervised visitation which they anticipated would be deeply aggravating to him.
Thus, in her letter to Kathy Service dated November 5, 2014 informing her that the DPH has found no violations in the case, Kathleen Boulware stated, "Your monitoring of Mr. Boyne and his minor children relating to their reunification did not constitute the practice of social work." Oh, so that is what she was doing; she was "monitoring" not "dealing with complex emotional issues" related to reunifying a parent with his children. No wonder, as Ms. Boulware continued on to state to Ms. Kathy Service, "your responsibilities in the "Transition in Parenting" program do not constitute clinical social work and you were therefore not required to have a license at the time." Of course, you weren't, because what you were doing was supervised visitation!
So to Paul who thought he was getting the TIP Program, the DPH said, the service provided was not social work, but to Ms. Kathy Service who knew very well what she was doing, Kathleen Boulware said the service you provided was only supervised visitation, so you are not liable. This left Paul Boyne with the impression that reunification therapy is not counseling, when the reality is that he never got counseling; he only obtained supervised visitation. This was a very slick way to avoid accountability, and it was basically unanswerable because Paul didn't know what was going on.
On November 5, the same day that she sent a letter to Ms. Kathy Service, Kathleen Boulware sent another letter directly to Paul Boyne stating, "the Department has concluded that no violations of the statutes governing social work practice have been identified." This was actually a full year after Mary Beth Mendes had submitted the results of her investigation to the department, which meant that the Department of Public Health simply sat on the results before sending them out. Why? Just so they could hold Paul Boyne in suspense and hold out the hope that he would eventually receive some satisfaction, when in reality they fully intended to continue to obstruct him.
Meanwhile, Paul Boyne had to spend his time at the beginning of 2013 filing motions to prevent the work Kathy Service did at the Klingberg from being used against him in court since their contents arose from an incomplete course of treatment and therefore misrepresented what was actually going on in his relationship with his children. So then he looked silly. "Isn't this a program that he wanted?" the Court might say. With the kind of convoluted and deceptive explanations the DPH provided, it would be very difficult for Paul to explain how Klingberg sabotaged his efforts to reengage with his children.
As I see it, when Hartford Family Court sent Paul Boyne to the Klingberg Center--of course you can never know what were the originating sources of the problem, but they are there--he was set up by being placed in the supervised visitation program instead of in the TIP counseling program as he expected--a course of action that was very disruptive to the entire process, and deliberately so.
One of the criteria the Court considered when deciding whether Paul Boyne could see his children again was the ability he had to work productively with the staff at Klingberg in pursuit of reunification. However, after being harassed by his ex-wife and not having any recourse, after having to read the extended negative comments about him his children were reputed to have said on an Agency intake form, and then receiving improper treatment, Mr. Boyne was simply unable to do it. The way the Klingberg Center carried out their form of reunification therapy, the price of the restoration of Paul Boyne's right to parent was the ability he had to accept humiliation and abuse without complaint--we've all been there!--and clearly, as a result of all the harassment, he failed to have the emotional reserves to do it.
Aside from very real human rights violations, the Klingberg Center was in contempt for violating a very clear order from Judge Adelman indicating that Paul Boyne was supposed to be in the TIP program, not the supervised visitation program. But with the collusion of the DPH, the Center will never be held accountable.
What is the bottom line? Paul's hopes for a reunification with his children were dashed and he was back at square one after all that investment of time and energy. My friend the pottery maker is still out there providing services for people who think she is a "clinician." There are unlicensed mental health professionals out there working for the state and providing therapy for clients who are unaware that they are not licensed. But should they ever figure it out, they will be told the therapy they received was not actually therapy. The Klingberg Center provides both supervised visitation and the TIP Program interchangeably as it pleases, depending on whether they want to harass people or not. And the Department of Public Health continues to allow places like the Klingberg Center to defraud citizens like Paul as well as the general public.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
KARYN GIL v. JOHN A. GIL, A.C. 28760 AND A.C. 25912, PART IV: LOU KIEFER TAKES ON PAS CASE FOR $1.00 AN HOUR WITH ONE PROVISO--FATHER HAS TO KEEP TAKING HIS EX-WIFE TO COURT FOR PAS!
My introduction to this case took place when Jane pulled an official envelope from her coat pocket, took out a legal document and handed it to me. It contained all sorts of demands, indicating that John Gil, who had spent over a decade using the legal system to persecute his ex wife, was now planning on continuing that pursuit against his daughter.
Jane and I also talked further about her plans for college. But of course, so much of the funds for a college education for Jane ended up being consumed by the legal system.
Just to review some of the facts in the case, on April 5, 2004, Mr. John A. Gil won his case against Karyn Gil for parental alienating him from his daughter. He succeeded essentially because Judge Herbert Gruendel denied Karyn the opportunity to put on the stand her expert witness, Jane's current therapist, Dr. Laura Ginther. But then, here is the irony, six months later, after his ruling had driven Jane to the point of suicide, this very same judge allowed Dr. Ginther to testify to the effect that there was no parental alienation in this case.
More notable is that fact that the judge then decided to terminate permanently John Gil's visitation with his daughter.
There were other factors involved in that decision such as the judge was sick and tired of Mr. Gil's game playing, but the bottom line is that, in essence, the judge reversed his ruling in the case.
Still, the later decision reversing his orders had no impact on the earlier April 5, 2004 decision which continued on to Appellate Court where it was upheld by the judges of the Appellate Court on March 14, 2006.
Meanwhile, in between these two decisions, on April 29, 2005 Mr. John Gil demanded that family court order a genetic test because he claimed that he was not Jane's father. The court allowed him to undertake the test and the results indicate that he is, in fact, Jane's father.
And this is the absurdity of the situation. Here is a man who acknowledged on the record that he had never bonded with his daughter. Here is a man who chose to question his paternity of the child to the point where he demanded a genetic test. Yet Judge Herbert Gruendel saw fit to rule that the mother had parentally alienated the child from him? What nonsense!
Nonetheless, on March 14, 2006 the Appellate Court reaffirmed the trial courts decision. Of course, that was predictable since only .5% of trial court decisions ever get overturned by the Appellate Court, no matter how ridiculous. This decision led to the next issue in the case. As you may recall, Karyn Gil was determined to have committed parental alienation, she was judged to be in contempt of the parents' visitation agreement, and the opposing side was granted attorney's fees.
When it came to the determination of the amount of the attorney's fees, guess who was the opposing attorney who was due to get the money? Yes, our friend, Attorney Lou Kiefer who represented the alleged abuser, Tom Wilkerson, in the Linda Wiegand case!
When it came to the determination of the amount of the attorney's fees, guess who was the opposing attorney who was due to get the money? Yes, our friend, Attorney Lou Kiefer who represented the alleged abuser, Tom Wilkerson, in the Linda Wiegand case!
In order to determine the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded to John Gil's attorney, the case then went before Judge Herbert Barall, another familiar face. As many of you who have been reading my blog for a while will recall, this was the notorious judge in the Linda Wiegand trial who manipulated the case and suppressed evidence, i.e. the Massomeno report, so the outcome ended up in favor of the alleged abuser. In other words, this is a judge who has a lengthy reputation for bullying, harassing, and disrespecting the constitutional rights of the litigants who appear before him, particularly women.
Apparently, Judge Barall held several hearings on the issue of attorney's fees in the Gil case during June 2007 and then decided to fine Karyn Gil $30,659.54 to cover a combination of the attorneys fees in the trial court case and the appellate case.
And this is where the story gets really interesting. Naturally, there was discovery at this point. Then in court testimony regarding attorney's fees, it came out that the opposing side's attorney, Lou Kiefer, had established a retainer agreement with John Gil in which Attorney Kiefer agreed to charge solely $1.00 per hour as long as John Gil continued to take Karyn Gil back to court on motions for contempt. According to their agreement, Kiefer then could collect his attorney's fees through money recovered on the basis of a finding of contempt.
Of course, in her defense Karyn Gil argued that if Attorney Kiefer charged his client only $1.00 an hour for his services, that is all he should get. Anything else would represent a kind of contingency agreement which is a violation of Connecticut's Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(d)(1) for attorneys. This is, of course, absolutely true, but you know since Karyn Gil was not the favored party in this case, she wasn't able to win that one!
Hop, skip and jump to the end of the decision, the Appellate Court upheld the award. But, of course, when don't they support attorney and judicial wrongdoing when it comes to the nonsense that goes on in family court.
So the retainer agreement for $1.00 per hour explains John Gil's full fourteen years and ongoing legal abuse of his ex-wife and child.
In my case, my attorney would demand a huge chunk of money such as $30,000 on the spot for his retainer. Once that money ran out, the attorney would come to me and pretty much say, if I don't get another $30,000, I'm no longer representing you in this case. I had multiple attorneys, but I recall one attorney--Attorney Eliot Nerenberg (if you want to know) memorably said to me, "If you don't write me a check for another $25,000 retainer on the spot, this conversation is over!"
Understandably, I was unable to proceed with fourteen years of litigation because my various attorneys immediately stopped working as soon as the money ran out!
In contrast, my ex-husband's attorney gave him some kind of cut rate--I'll never know because I never once saw one of his bills. But at the same time, I never saw him sweat an attorney bill either, or attempt to solve our legal problems out of court due to pressing attorney fees like I did.
Family court makes a show of respecting the concept of making sure that there is a "level playing field" between the parties in a family court case. One thing is sure, however, if one party in a case is only paying $1.00 per hour while the other is paying $250 per hour or more, you certainly do not have a level playing field.
If one party has unlimited resources because they are only paying a token amount, while the other is paying in full for all legal services, you simply cannot begin to talk about fairness in such a case.
Judges are absolutely aware of this, and Judge Herbert Barall was certainly aware of this when he imposed the fine of $30,659,54 on Karyn Gil.
Undoubtedly, the Gil case represents some of the worst injustice happening in our family courts today. It is a case of a father stalking his ex wife and daughter through the family court system, leading to permanent psychological damage for both. And I have no doubt that the physical damage as a consequence of stress generated by this case remains an issue for Karyn Gil who was already physically disabled well before the case began.
Judge Herbert Barall, Judge Herbert Gruendel, Attorney Campbell Barrett, and Attorney Lou Kiefer have led the charge when it comes to attacking the fundamental human and constitutional rights of women litigants in family court. I have no doubt that Attorney Lou Kiefer used Gil v. Gil as a means of establishing a strong precedent for using Parental Alienation Syndrome as the basis for punishing other protective mothers in family court throughout the State of Connecticut. Since I began this blog, I've received multiple reports of abuses of this kind taking place in family court.
Ultimately, the Gil case, more than any other, exposes the fundamental gender bias against mothers that penetrates into every aspect of litigation in Connecticut Family Court.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Gil v. Gil, Part III:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/karyn-gil-v-john-gil-ac-28760-and-ac_26.html
Gil v. Gil, Part II:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/karyn-gil-v-john-gil-ac-28760-and-ac.html
Gil. v. Gil, Part I:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/karyn-gil-v-john-gil-ac-ac-28760-and-ac.html
RELATED ARTICLES:
Gil v. Gil, Part III:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/karyn-gil-v-john-gil-ac-28760-and-ac_26.html
Gil v. Gil, Part II:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/karyn-gil-v-john-gil-ac-28760-and-ac.html
Gil. v. Gil, Part I:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/karyn-gil-v-john-gil-ac-ac-28760-and-ac.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)